Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unique house situation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The reason i brought up ss is bc nothing else is being resolved. Its one issue when we have alot more... i dont know why things that are to be covered in cc are being ignored and the focus is on one thing. Then motions are being brought from day 1 and used as threats againt my side. When do the other things get settled like disclosure, custody, house, etc when its only 1 issue being focused on. Im so confused

    Comment


    • #17
      Ok Im lost.

      You had a cc already? Or you have one tomorrow?

      Almost everything you stated should have been in the initial filing. If there was a requirement for disclosure that would be ordered at the first cc and truly it should just be proof of the home ownership and dates of purchase.

      Don’t throw things in that are unnecessary. Demanding ss while you’re in this mess is creating a bigger mess. Let him be unreasonable and get spoken to by a judge. Make a reasonable offer to settle and be done with it. If he keeps this up and continues to trial and he loses, he will then have to pay costs.

      Comment


      • #18
        We had a cc. My lawyer said nothing to defens me. Disclosure was stated but instead of asking him to show bank records from 6 months to show $ being moved my lawyer did a general one asking for everything that doesnt apply to us. And the judge said so. All we needed from his side os 6 months of bank statements not for the 2 years my lawyer asked for. I think i need to switch lawyers. If we offee to settle ambefore motion and they say no will it help in the motion?

        Comment


        • #19
          You should always do an offer to settle. No matter what, the offer insulates you from the time it is put forward.

          Unless it is a lot of money or will make a great deal of difference then you really shouldn’t be fighting for it. If it was an inheritance I don’t believe you are entitled to it. You are simply spinning your wheels.

          Make an offer to pay him half of the increase in value of the house while he lived there, shared custody with off set child support and ongoing disclosure of income until the kid finishes school.

          Your lawyer doesn’t need to defend you. Your lawyer is defending the argument which seems to be “he is not entitled to anything”. Drop the argument about what he is hiding and go from there. If he is hiding income for support purposes then fight for imputed income.

          From the sounds of it, you are wasting just as much money too.

          Comment


          • #20
            Oh i am. The lawyers ive spoken to which were recommended are saying do am offer too. Also i think he wont accept the value i think he wants half. If thats the case ot will be harder bc that is over 100k we are talking

            Comment


            • #21
              Hey is there a way to delete this thread? I dont want him to come across it

              Comment


              • #22
                My understanding is that it is the matrimonial home and he is entitled to half no matter who paid for it even if he is not on title. That's the law.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ele110 View Post
                  My understanding is that it is the matrimonial home and he is entitled to half no matter who paid for it even if he is not on title. That's the law.

                  Its not the matrimonial home. It was owned before the marriage and he moved in. Plus it was a short marriage. He will be hard pressed to prove it is a joint asset.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Which province do you live in?
                    Ottawa Divorce

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I live in ON. I spoke to my head lawyer and hes saying the same thing everyone else is. But i need to switch lawyers bc mine sucks in courr and cant argue... anyone know any good gta lawyers?

                      Oh and when i asked why are we not figuring out this house situation she saysi dont want to go through motions.... so how the hell do we figure it out? If not through an offer which they reject then what? Just wait for years til trial?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Property in Ontario is governed by the Family Law Act.


                        Section 5(1) states that when a couple separates, the net family property of both spouses is to be equalized.


                        Looking at the definition of net family property in section 4(1), one deducts: "the value of property, other than a matrimonial home, that the spouse owned on the date of the marriage".


                        So, you do not receive any credit for the equity in a matrimonial home that has been brought into the marriage. In other words, the entire value of your matrimonial home is part of the pot that gets divided between you and your spouse.


                        Given the brief duration of your marriage, your lawyer is likely arguing for an unequal division of assets under section 5(6)(e):


                        "The court may award a spouse an amount that is more or less than half the difference between the net family properties if the court is of the opinion that equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable, having regard to, the fact that the amount a spouse would otherwise receive under subsection (1), (2) or (3) is disproportionately large in relation to a period of cohabitation that is less than five years"


                        It is quite an uphill battle to succeed at showing there should be an unequal division of property, but it is possible. Here is a recent Ottawa case:


                        Abdulhadi v. Ahmad, 2019 ONSC 215
                        https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...19onsc215.html


                        In this case, the husband bought a house just prior to marriage. Cohabitation was 18 months. The husband made all financial contributions to house. The court ordered only 1/3 of the equalization payment to be made, given that the parties had lived together about 1/3 of the statutory 5 year maximum for a claim for unequal division.


                        Some other cases that you will likely find helpful:


                        Burden v. Burden [0214] O.J. No. 5192 (ONSC)
                        Kucera v. Kucera [2005] O.J. No 3363 (ONSC)
                        MacNeil v. Pope [1999] O.J. No. 242 (Ontario Court of Appeal)
                        Serra v. Serra [2009] O.J. No. 432 (Ontario Court of Appeal)
                        Sacrino v. Sarcino [1999] O.J. No. 902 (ONSC)



                        TL;DR - If you owe a large equalization payment after only about 18 months of cohabitation, you may well be able to get it reduced.


                        A common way of reducing it is to prorate it against the 5-year statutory maximum.


                        That being said, it is not going to be an easy or cheap matter. There is pretty much an automatic presumption that net family property is equalized. All the work will be need to be done by your lawyer to prove that it should be unequal, while your spouse's lawyer does not need to do much (at least with respect to this issue).
                        Ottawa Divorce

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          So how do we approach this? Through motions or settlement? Also how good does my lawyer have to be? Currently she cant argue. Any recommendations?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I would argue it would be "unjust enrichment" for the ex to get half of the matrimonial home. If you can show any evidence of monies being paid by your family for the home, it likely would help that argument.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Plenty to show... but it just depends on the lawyers, settlement and judges now

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                                I believe he would only be entitled to a portion of the increase in value during the time he lived there.
                                Unfortunately (and unfairly) the matriomonial home does not count as an asset on the date of marriage, which means she does not get any credit from it. It is one of the significant differences between a marriage and a CL relationship.

                                However, it was a short marriage, so she might be fine. I think she might need a lawyer on this one, there could be a lot of money on the line.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X